At the Cafe: Conversations on Anarchism

CAFE

ERR

CONVERSATIONS ON l

AT THE CAFE: CONV ERSATIONS ON ANARCHISM BY ERRICO MALAT ESTA

FRE EDOM PRESS

AT THE CAFE: CONVERSATIONS ON ANARCHISM BY ERRICO MALATESTA

Edited with an introduction by Paul Nursey-Bray

Translated by Paul Nursey-Bray with the assistance of Piero Ammiralo

CONTE

Introduction

T

6

Dialogue Nine

80

Dialogue One

12

Dialogue Ten

88

Dialogue Two

18

Dialogue Eleven

98

Dialogue Three

26

Dialogue Twelve

104

Dialogue Four

34

Dialogue Thirteen

110

Dialogue Five

44

Dialogue Fourteen

118

Dialogue Six

52

Dialogue Fifteen

126

ISBN 1 904491 06 5

Dialogue Seven

60

Dialogue Sixteen

136

Printed in Greot Britoin by Aldgote Press Units 5/6 Gunthorpe Workshops, Gunthorpe Street, London E1 7RQ

Dialogue Eight

72

Dialogue Seventeen 146

Grophic Design ond Photographs by Nillo Westin Published 2005 by Freedom Press 84B W hitechopel High Street, London El 7QX

Malatesta began writing the series of dialogues that make up At

while subjecting his own anarchist views to a critical scrutiny

the Cafe: Conversations on Anarchism in March 1897, while he

aimed at communicating to his readers their political import and

was in hiding in Ancona and busy with the production of the peri­

their practical applicability. Indeed one of the strengths of the dia­

odical L'Agitozione. Luigi Fabbri, in his account of this period,

logues is the absence of straw men. The inquisition of anarchism

written to introduce the 1922 edition of the full set of dialogues

is searching and genuine, often highlighting what its opponents

(Bologna, Edizioni di Vo/onta) , edited by Malatesta (Reprint,

would regard as points of weakness and vulnerability. It makes

Torino,Sorgrof, 1961), gives us a beguiling picture of Malatesta,

Malatesta's spirited defence all the more impressive.

clean-shaven as a disguise, coming and going about the city, pipe in mouth, smiling impudently at his friends, who, for the sake of his

Towards the end of 1897 Malatesta was identified and discovered by the Ancona police. He was arrested and then released.

safety, wished him elsewhere.

Immediately he began a round of lectures, abandoning both his The idea of the dialogues was suggested to him by the foct that he

journal and the unfinished dialogues. In 1898 he was placed

often frequented a cafe that was not usually the haunt of subver­

under house arrest and in March 1899 he fled abroad, once more

sives such as himself. Indeed, one of the regulars, who was a

becoming a refugee. The dialogues remained interrupted at num­

member of the police, used to engage Malatesta in conversation

ber ten, and in this form they were published, both in journals and

without, of course, as Fabbri notes, any idea that a real prize lay

as a pamphlet.

within his grasp. Anarchism would almost certainly been one of the topics of conversation since the anarchists of the city constant­

The chief propagandists of the first ten dialogues are Malatesta's

ly bombarded their fellow townspeople with a barrage of propa­

alter ego, Giorgio, an anarchist, Prospero, a wealthy member of

ganda that occasioned frequent trials.

the bourgeoiSie, Cesare, a shopkeeper and Ambrogio, a magis­

The form that the dialogues were to take was drawn then from an

and views drawn from a wide spectrum of society. If Prospero

trate. Malatesta is thus able to reflect a range of political positions actual venue and from Malatesta's own experience. It resulted in

speaks for wealth and privilege, Cesare speaks for the smaller

a literary device excellently well suited to his particular genius,

property owners and the middle classes. He shows an awareness

which is his ability to render complex ideas into straightforward

of social problems and appears amenable to persuasion by

language and to make them directly accessible. The dialogue form

Giorgio, but he also exhibits a concern that any solution must not

also allowed Malatesta to debate the ideas of his opponents,

be allowed to disrupt the existing social order. Ambrogio is the

6

7

voice of the law and the liberal state and of accepted ideas on

social order maintained by free agreement and voluntary delega­

rights and justice. He is also, as Giorgio's chief opponent, the one

tion. The argument continues into the next Dialogue (Dialogue

who expresses common sense views about human nature and

Nine] where the objections to a society without government are

human behaviour. His views contain a liberal expression of rights

again rehearsed and Giorgio further

theory, tempered by what he would claim as recognition of the lim­

Kropotkin's argument about the universality of mutual aid, an idea

develops

a form of

its imposed on liberty by the inescapable dictates of reality. The

first introduced in Dialogue Six. Discourse Ten strikes out in a new

result is a broad canvas on which Malatesta is able, in respond­

direction, focussing on sex, love and the family. In covering many

ing to the various viewpoints and in answering the numerous crit­

issues related to feminism any inherent basis for gender inequali­

icisms that Giorgio's views elicit, to paint a skilfully drawn and

ty is persuasively dismissed.

detailed picture of an anarchist view of the world. It was 15 years later, in 191 3, that Malatesta returned to the dia­ In a relatively short space Malatesta introduces us to all of the

logues. At this time he had once more established himself in

basic doctrines of communist anarchism and considers one by one

Ancona and had begun the publication of his new journal

many of the major objections to his position. After setting the

Vo/ontO. In this new publication he republished the original ten

scene, it is private property and property rights that become the

dialogues, in an edited and corrected form, and added four more.

focus of attention. In Dialogues Two, Three and Four it is argued

Initially, in Dialogues Eleven and Twelve, it is once again Cesare,

that the causes of poverty are located in the nature of the proper­

Prospero and Ambrogio who are Giorgio's interlocutors, The issue

ty system and its associated class structure and a forceful attack is

of criminality is raised in Dialogue Eleven. How do we deal with

mounted on the right to private property and the capitalist system,

criminals in the absence of government, law, courts or prisons?

with incidental discussions of Malthus and free trade. At the same

Giorgio answers that the issue must be dealt with communally.

time the notions of a complete change in the property regime and

From here the discussion moves on to a contrast between mental

the creation of a society without government are introduced. The

and manual labour and the old chestnut of who is to do the jobs

origin of property and property rights are considered in Dialogue

that nobody wants to do. Won't everyone want to be a poet? The

Five, and Giorgio maintains that property rights must be abolished

usual answer is provided, that is a voluntary rotation of tasks and

if exploitation is to be avoided. In Dialogue Six the case for com­

the development of multiple skills by community members.

mon ownership is made and the idea of communism introduced.

Dialogue Twelve investigates the need for revolution, and a case

This discussion of communism continues in Dialogue Seven with

is made for the sad necessity of a violent revolution, since the exist­

opposition to it as a tyrannical and oppressive system being

ing order is maintained by violence and the privileged classes will

strongly maintained by Ambrogio in the name of abstract liberty.

not surrender their hold on power unless it is shaken loose,

Giorgio counters with a depiction of anarchist society as a volun­ tary, complex federation of associations, and in the process con­

In Dialogue Thirteen we meet a new character, Vincenzo, a young

trasts the anarchist form of free communism with that of the author­

Republican, and a discussion ensues regarding the merits and lim­

itarian school. Dialogue Eight moves the focus to the question of

itations of a republican approach to change. Its chief defect is

government and the state and how a society can function in their

identified as a reliance on government and on systems of demo­

absence. In the process there is an extended critique of parliamen­

cratic representation. Republicanism is not, it is argued, as radical

tarianism and representation, and a defence of anarchism as a

as its supporters believe since it remains prey to the evils of the

8

9

existing political system. The last dialogue of this new series

of nationalism and patriotism. The points Malatesta mokes here

(Dialogue Fourteen) returns to the theme of revolution. What

echo lenin's call for class solidarity in the foce of the divisive and

Giorgio emphasises is that anarchism in its desire to remove the

destructive nationalism of the First World War. Giorgio makes it

state and government is a new factor in history and proposes

clear that in his view patriotism is simply a device by which the

changes quite different and more profound than previous revolu­

bourgeoisie recruits working class support for the existing proper­

tions which aimed simply at changing the political regime.

ty regime, and the territorial ambitions of those who benefit from

Once more the dialogues were to be interrupted by political

discussion ensues that aims at distinguishing anarchism from both

it. Finally, in Dialogue Seventeen, luigi, a socialist, enters and a

1914,

as the storm clouds of World War I gath­

parliamentary and authoritarian socialism, but with the key focus

ered, serious popular risings broke out in the Marches and

on the inevitable failure of the parliamentary path and of any form

events. In June

Romagna, in what became known as Red Week. Malatesta was

of what Eduard Bernstein had called evolutionary socialism. The

involved in these popular struggles and, as a result, was forced to

need for a revolutionary change is underlined.

take refuge in london. Six years passed and Malatesta returned to Italy, establishing himself in Milan, where he edited the

Work on the dialogues in their present form was completed by

Newspoper Umanild Novo. He was too busy, Fabbri notes, to

October

give his attention to the old dialogues, and he did not intend to

ploced in the prison of San Vittore. There was an extensive police

1920.

On

16

October Malatesta was arrested and

add to them. However, Fabbri informs us that someone or other

search of his apartments for arms and explosives, but the manu­

who spent a fortnight with him as a guest persuaded him to con­

script of the dialogues remained undiscovered or ignored. They

tinue with the project. The mysterious guest must, one would think,

were published as a set, with Fabbri's introduction, in

1922.

have been Fabbri himself. The result was 0 further three dialogues, a continuation rather than a conclusion, since there is no obvious point of closure.

These dialogues of Malatesta represent not just a major contribu­ tion to anarchist political theory, but a significant historical docu­ ment. Written over a period of

In these last three essays some old topics are revisited and some

23

years they are a commentary

on turbulent times and vital historical events, covering as they do

new themes, of contemporary significance, receive attention.

an epoch distinguished in particular by left-Wing agitation and

Dialogue Fifteen introduces Gino, a worker, and canvasses the

organisation across Europe. During the time spanned by these

fears of ordinary people about a lack of civil order in the pro­

ruminations on anarchism the world witnessed the Second

posed stateless society and the perceived need for police. Police,

International, the rise of Bolshevism, the First World War, the birth

Malatesta argues through Giorgio, breed criminals, just as he had

of Fascism and the Russian Revolutions, bath of

argued earlier in Anarchy that the louvrelerie (wolf catchers) breed

Without any direct allusion to ony of these events the dialogues

wolves, since without wolves or criminals the survival of the respec­

engage in a lively debate with many of the issues that they raise. In a real sense Malotesta has crafted anarchist theory into a run­

tive bodies of officials would be in jeopardy (london,

34).

1974: 33-

Social defence, he asserts, is a community responsibility. The

foct that this issue was olready discussed in Dialogue Eleven is an

and

1917.

ning commentary on his times. It is a work of intelligence, style and rool artistry. Paul Nursey-Bray

indication of its importance to Malatesta. In Dialogue Sixteen we meet Pippo, a crippled war veteran, who opens up the questions

10

1904

11

ONE

P R O S P E Ra [A plump member of the bourgeoisie, full of

T he laws of nature are i mmutable and neither great speech­

political economy and other sciences]: But of course . . . of

es, nor mawkish sentimentality can do anything about it. The

course . . . we know all about it. There are people suffering

wise person accepts fate, and gets the best out of life that he

from hunger, women prostituting themselves, children dying

can, without running after pointless dreams.

from a lack of core. You always say the same thing . . . in the end you become boring . Allow me to savour my gelati in

M ICH E L E: Ah? So we are dealing with natural laws? . .

peace . . . Certainly, there are a thousand evils in our society,

And what if the poor got i t into their heads to correct these .. .

hunger, ignorance, war, crime, plague, terrible m ishaps . . .

laws of nature. I have heard speeches hardly supportive of

so what? Why is it your concern?

these superior laws.

M ICH E L E fA student who keeps company with s ocialists

P R O S P E Ra : Of course, of course. We well know the peo­

and an archists]: I beg your pardon? Why is it my concern?

ple with whom you associate. On my behalf, tell those

You have a comfortable home, a well-provisioned table, ser­

scoundrel socialists and anarc h i sts, who you have chosen to

vants at your command; for you everything is fine. And as

be your preferred company, that for them, and for those who

long a s you and yours are all right, even if the world around

would try to put in practice their wicked theories, we have

you collapses, nothing matters. Really, if you only had a lit­

good soldiers and excellent carabinieri.

tle heart . . . M IC H E L E: O h ! If you are going to bring in the soldiers and P R O S P E Ra: Enough, enough . . . don't sermonise ... Stop

the carabinieri, I won't talk anymore. It is l i ke proposing a

rag ing, young man. You th ink I am insensible, indifferent to

fist fight to demonstrate my opinions are in error. However,

the m isfortunes of others. On the contrary, my heart bleeds,

don't rely on brute force if you have no other arguments.

(waiter, bring me a cognac and a cigar), my heart bleeds;

Tomorrow you may find yourself in the weakest position;

but the great social problems are not resolved by sentiment. 12

wha t then?

13

PROSPERa. What then? Wel l , if that m isfortune should

PROSPERa: Young man, young man, really! Let's have

come about, there would be great disorder, an explosion of

some respect.

evil passions, massacres, looting . . . and then it would all return to how it was before. Maybe a few poor people

MICHELE: All right, I respect you. But don't throw my age

would have become enriched, some rich people would have

in my face, as if in fact you were raising an objection to me

fallen into poverty, but overall nothing would have changed,

with the police. Arguments are not old or young, they are

because the world cannot change. Bring me, j ust bring me

goad or bad; that's aiL

one of these anarchist agitators of yours and you will see how I will tan his hide. They are good at filling the heads of

PROSPERa: Well, well, let's get on with what you have to

people l i ke you with tall stories because your heads a re

say?

empty; but you'll see whether they will be able to mainta i n thei r absurd ities with me.

MICHelE: I must say that I cannot understand why the

M I C H E L E: All right. I will bring a friend of m ine who holds

bread, nor wine or meat; why bricklayers that build houses

peasants that hoe, sow and harvest have neither sufficient socialist and anarchist principles and I will promote your d is­

don't have a roof for shelter, why shoemakers have worn

cussion with him with pleasure. In the meantime discuss mat­

shoes. In other words, why is it that those who work, that

ters with me, for while I still don't have well d eveloped opin­

produce everything, lack basic necessities; while those who

ions, I clearly see that society as i t is organized today, is a

don't do anything revel in abundance. I cannot understand

thing contrary to good sense and decency. Come now, you

why there are people that lack bread, when there is much

are so fat and Flourishing that a bit of excitement will not do

uncultivated land and a lot of people who would be extreme­

you any har m . It will help your digestion.

ly hqppy to be able to cu ltivate it; why are there so many brick layers out of work while there are lots of people who

PROSPERa: Come on, then; let's have a discussion. But,

need houses; why many shoemakers, dressmakers etc . . . are

you ought to know that it would be better if you studied

without work, while the majority of the population lacks

i nstead of spitting out opinions about matters that are the

shoes, clothes and all the necessities of civil l ife. Could you

province of others more learned and wiser. I believe I can

please tell m e which is the natural law that explains and jus­

g ive you 20 years?

tifies these absurdities?

M I CH HE: This does not prove that you have studied more,

PROSPERa: Nothi ng could be more clear and simple.

and if I have to judge you from what you have been saying, I doubt that, even if you have studied a lot, you have gained

To produce, human labour is not enough, you need land,

much from it.

materials, tools, premises, machinery and you also need the 14

15

means to survive while waiting for the product to be m ade' and delivered to the m arket: i n a word, you need capital. Your peasants, your workers, h ave only their physical

and will always be, a continuous struggle. There are those who have fared well and those who h ave fared badly. What

can I do about it? So much the worse for some, so m uc h the

labour; as a consequence they cannot work if such is not the

better for others. Woe to the conquered! This is the grand

wish of those who own land and capital. And since we are

law of natu re against which no revolt is possible.

few in number and h ave enough even if, for a while, we leave our l and uncultivated and our capital inoperative, while the workers are many and are always constrai ned by immed i ate needs, it follows that they must work whenever and however we wish and on whatever terms th at suit us. And when we no longer need their labour and calculate th at there is no gain from making them work, they are forced to remain idle even when they h ave the greatest need for the very thi ngs they could produce. Are you content now? Could I explain it more clearly that

What would you l i ke? Should I deprive myself of all I h ave $0

I can rot i n poverty, while someone else stuffs themselves

on my money? M ICHELE: I do not exactly want that. But I ' m thinking: what if the workers profiting from their numbers and basing them­ selves on you r theory th at life is a struggle and th at rights derive from facts, get the idea into their heads of creating a new "historic fact", by taking away you r land and capital and inaugurating new rights?

this? P R O SPERa: Ah! Certainly, th at would complicate molters. M I CHE L E : Certai nly, this is what one calls speaking frankly, there is no question about th at. But, by what right does land belong only to a few? How is it th at capital is fou nd in a few h ands, specifically i n the

But... we s h al l continue on another occasion. Now I h ave to go to the theatre. Good evening to you all.

h ands of those who do not work? P R O SPE Ra: Yes, yes, I know what you are saying to me, and I even know the more or less lame arguments with which others would oppose you; the right of the owners derives from the i m p rovement they bring to the land, from savings by means of which labour is transformed i nto capital, etc . But let me be even more frank. Things are as they ore as the result of h istorical facts, the product of h u ndreds of years of h u m an history. The whole of human exi stence h as been, is, 16

17

TWO

A M B R O G I O [Magistrate ] : listen, Signor Prospero, now that it i s j ust between ourselves, all good conservatives. The other eveni ng when you were talking to that empty head, Michele, I did not want to i ntervene; but, do you th i nk that was the way to defend our institutions? It very nearly seemed that you were the anarch ist!

You see, it is only a q uestion of names. You say rights, I s ay force; but, then, what really counts are the blessed cara­

binieri, and whoever h as them on their side i s right. AMB R O G I O: Come, now, Signor Prospera! It seems impossible th at your love of sophism must always stifle your conservative i nsti ncts.

P R O S P E R O : Well, I never! Why is that? A M B R O G I O . Because, what you were saying in essence is th at all of the present social organisation is founded on force, thereby providing argu ments for those who would l i ke to destroy it with force. But what about the supreme princi­ ples which govern civil societies, rights, morality, religion, don't they count for anythi ng ?

You don't u nderstand how m any bod effects follow from the sight of a person such as yourself, one of the elders of the town, prOVid i ng arguments for the worst enemies of order. Believe me

we should stop th i s bod h abit of squabb l i ng

among ourselves, at least in public; let's all unite to defend our i nstitutions which because of the wickedness of the times are receiving some brutal blows . . . and to look after our

P R O S P E R O : O f course, you always h ave a mouth full of rig hts. It i s a b ad h abit th at comes from your profession.

endangered interests. P R O S P E R O : let's u nite, by all means; but if some strong

If tomorrow the governme nts should decree, let's suppose,

measures are not token, if you don't stop using l i beral doc­

collectivism, you would condemn the supporters of private

trines we will not resolve anythi ng .

property with the same impassiveness with which today you condemn the anarchists . . . and always in the name of the supreme principles of eternal and i m mutable rights! 18

A M B R O G I O : Oh[ Yes, certainly. We need severe l aws to

be strictly applied. 19

But it is not enoug h . Force alone c annot keep a people sub­ jected for long, parti c u l arly in th i s day and age . It is neces­ sary to oppose propag anda with propaganda, there is a need to persu ade people th at we are right. P R O S P E R O: You really are kidding yourself! My poor friend, in our common i nterest, I beg you, be careful of prop­ aganda. It i s subversive stuff even i f it is carried out by con­ servatives; and your propaganda would always turn to the' advantage of social i sts, anarch ists or whatever else they call themselves. Go and persuade someone that is h u ngry that it is j u st th at they don't eat, the more so when it is they who produce the food ! So long as they don't think about it and continue to bless God and the boss for what IiHl e they receive, it's all right. But, from the moment they start to reflect on their posi­ tion it's over: they will become an enemy with whom you will never be reconciled. Not on your life! We m ust avoi d prop­ ag anda at all cost, stifle the printing press, with or without or perhaps, even against the l aw. A M B R O G I O That's right, th at's right. P R O S P E R 0 : Prevent all meetings, dismantle all associ a­ tions, send to jail all those who th ink... C ESARE

[shopkeepe r] : E asy, easy, don't let passion

sweep you away. Remember th at other governments, in more favourable times, adopted the measures that you are suggesting . . . and it precipitated their own downfall.

20

A M B R O G I O : Hush, h u s h ! Here comes Michele with

an

You see, I also recog nise th at thi ng s are going badly and

anarchist whom I sentenced last year to six m anths j ai l for a

that remedies need to be found. But we don't need to

subversive m anifesto. Actual ly, between ourselves, the mani­

becom e utopian, and above all we must avoid violence.

festo was done in such a way that the law couldn't touch it, but, what can you do? The criminal i ntention was there ...

.

Cenainly, the government should take the workers' c ause more to heart: it shou ld provide work for the unemployed;

and, after all, society m ust be defended !

protect the national industries, encourage commerce . But...

M IC H E L E : Good evening, Gentlemen. May I introduce to

G I O R G I O : How m any things you would like this poor gov­

you an anarch i st friend of m i ne who has accepted the cha�

ernment to do! But the government does not want to become

lenge thrown down the other evening by Signor. Prospera.

concerned for the interests of the workers, and it's under­ standable.

P R O S P E R 0: But, what ch allenge, what c hallenge?! We were only h avi ng a d i scussion among friends to pass the time. However, you were explaining to us what anarchism is, which is someth ing we h ave never been able to u nderstand . G I O R G I O [Ana rchist]: I am not a teacher of anarc h i sm and I h ave not come to g ive a course on the subject; but I can, when needed, defend my ideas. Besides, there is a gentleman here (referring to the magistrate, Ambrogio, in an ironic tone) who ought to know more about it than I . He has condem ned m any people for anarchism; and since he is for a certainty a m an of conscience, he would not h ave done so without first of all making a profound study of the arg u ments i nvolved. C E S A R E: Come, come, let's not get personal .. . and s i nce we must speak of anarchism, let's start on the subject i m me­ d i ately. 22

CES A RE : How can it be u nderstandable? Up to now, real­ ly, the government has shown a lack of capac ity and per­ haps little desi re to remedy the ills of the country; but, tomor­ row, enlightened and conscientious mi nisters might do what h asn't been done up to now. G I O R G I O : No, my dear sir, it is not a question of one min­ istry or another. It i s a question of government i n general; of all governments, those of tod ay, like those of yesterd ay, and those of tomorrow . The government em anates from propri­ etors, it needs the support of proprietors to sustain itself, its members are themselves proprietors; how can it therefore serve the i nterest of workers? On the other h and the government, even if it wanted to, could not resolve the social question because this is the prod­

u ct of general factors, that cannot be removed by govern­ a ment and which in fact themselves dete rm i ne the nature and

the d i recti on of government. I n order to resolve the social 23

question we m u st radically c h ange the whole system the government h as the appointed m i ssion of defend i ng . You talk about giving work to the unemployed. But, what can the government do if there is no work? Must i t make people do u seless work, and then who would pay them? Should gear production to provide for the u nsatisfied needs of the people? But, then, the proprietors would fi nd themselves unable to sell the products which they expropri ate from workers, as a m atter of fact they would h ave to cease to be proprietors, since, the government i n order to provide work for the people would take away from them the land and the capital which they h ave monopolised. Th i s would be social revolution, the liquidation of all of the past, and you well know that if th is is not carried out by the workers, peasants and the u nderprivileged, the government will certainly never do it.

nment s are the nment; and si nce you say th at all gover be the same as will ng hi everyt ion after the revolut

::::

before. GIOR G I O : You would be rig ht i f our revolution produced simply a c hange of government. But we want the complete transformation of the property reg ime, of the system of pro­ duc tion and exchange; and as far as the government is con­ cerned, a useless, h armful and parasitic org an, we don't want one at all. We believe that w hi le there is a government, in other words a body superimposed on society, and provid­

ed with the means to i mpose forci bly its own will, there will not be real emancipation, there will be no peace among people. You know that I am an anarch i st and anarchy means socie­ ty without government .

Protect i ndustry and commerce you say: but the government

C E SA R E: But what do you mean? A society without govern­

is able, at the most, to favour one ind u stri al class to the detri­

ment! How would you be able to live? Who would m ake the

ment of another, to favour the traders of one region at the

law? Who would execute it?

expense of those of another, and so, in total, nothing would be g ai ned, only a bit of favou ritism, a bit of i njustice and

G I O R G I O : I see th at you don't h ave any idea of what we

more unproductive expenditure. As far as a government

want. In order to avoid ti me wasting digressions you m u st

which protects all, it is an absurd idea because governments

allow me to explain, briefly, but methodically, our pro­

do not produce anythi ng and therefore can only transfer the

gramme; and then we can discuss m atters to our mutual ben­ efit.

wealth produced by others. C E S A R E : But what then? If the government does not want,

But now it i s late; we will conti nue next time.

and i s not able, to do anythi ng , what remedy is there? Even if you make the revolution you will need to create another

24

25

THREE

C E S A R E: So tonig ht you will explain how we can l ive

GIO R G I O: But in fact I want to demonstrate to you that

out government?

poverty depends on the present mode of social organisation, and that in a more egalitarian and rationally organised soci­

G I O R G I O : I will do my best. some consideration to how th ings are in soc iety as it is whether it is really necessary to ch ange its composition.

ety if must d is appear. When we do not know the causes of an evil and we don't h ave solutions, well, there is not much we can do about it;

Looking at the society in which we live, the first phenomena

but as soon as the solution is found, it becomes everybody's

that strike us are the poverty that afflicts the masses, the · u ncertainty of tomorrow which, more or less, weig hs on

concern and d uty to put it into practice.

everybody, the relentless struggle of everybody fighting

AMB R O G I O : Here is your mistake: poverty results from

everybody in order to conquer h u nger. . .

causes superior to human will and hu man l aw. Poverty

A M B R 0 G 10: But, m y dear sir, you could g o o n talking for some time about these social evils; u nfortunately, there are plenty of examples avail able. But, this does not serve any purpose, and it doesn't demonstrate that we would be bette r off by making everything topsy-turvy. I t's not only poverty that afflicts hum anity; there are also plag ues, cholera, earth­ qu akes .. . and it would be odd if you wished to d irect the rev­ olution against these courges.

results from the meanness of nature which does not supply sufficient products to meet human desires. Have a look at animals, where you cannot blame capitalist infamy nor tyrannical government; they must fight for food and often die of h u nger. When the cupboard's bare, the cup board's bare. The truth is that there are too m any people in the world . If people were able to control themselves and did not h ave c h ildren unless they could m aintain them . . . H ave you read Malthus?

Evil is in the nature of things . . .

26

27

G I O R G I O: Yes, a little; but it's all the same if I hadn't

Iat of goods the prices are reduced and profit decreases and

his work. What I know, without needing to read any part

rtrCJY end up being, in total, less than when goods are scarce

it, is that you m ust have some nerve, I must say to m

and can be sold at prices which suit them.

such things!

Not that this only happens in relation to agricultural prod­

Poverty results from meanness of nature, you say, though you are aware that there is uncultivated land . . . A M B R O G I O: I f there i s u ncultivated land i t means that cannot be cultivated, that it cannot produce enough to for the costs involved.

ucts. In every branch of human activity it is the same. For

il1$lance: in every city the poor are forced to live i n i n fected hovels, crowded together without any regard for hygiene or morals, i n conditions in which it i s impossible to keep clean and achieve a h uman existence. Why does this happen? Perhaps because there are no houses? But why aren't sound, comfortable and beautiful houses built for everybody?

G l O R G I 0: You believe that? Try on experiment and give it to the peasants and you see what gardens they'll create. But, you are not Why, much of this land was cultivated in times when the of agriculture was in its infancy and chemistry and agricu� tural technology hardly existed! Don't you know that !oday even stones can be transformed into fertile land? Don't you know that agronomists, even the less visionary ones, have calculated that a territory l i ke Italy, if rationally cultivated could easily maintain in plenty a population of one hundred m i l l ion?

The stones, bricks, lime, steel, tim ber, a l l the materials need­

ed for construction exist in abundance; as do the unem­ ployed bricklayers, carpenters, and architects who ask for nothing more than to work; why, then, i s there so much idle capacity when it could be utilised to everybody's advan­ tage. The reason is simple, and it is that, if there were a lot of houses, the rents would go down. The proprietors of the houses already built, who are the same people who have the means to build others, don't really have any desire to see their rents decrease just to win the approval of the poor.

The real reason why land is left uncultivated, and why culti­ vated land produces only a small proportion of its full poten­ tial, given the adoption of less primitive methods of cultiva­ tion, is because the proprietors do not have any interest in increasing its production.

C E S A R E: There is some truth in what you are saying; but you are deceiving yourself about the explanation for the painful things that are afflicting our country. The cause of the land being badly cultivated or left idle, of

They are not bothered about the welfare of the people; they

business running aground, and of poverty i n general is the

produce i n order to sell, and they know that when there is a

lack of elan i n the bourgeoisie. Capitalists are either fearful

28

29

or ignorant, and don't want or don't know how to develop industries; the landowners don't know how to break with their grandfathers' methods and don't want to be bothered; traders don't know how to find new outlets and the govern­ ment with its fiscal policy and its stupid customs policy instead of encouraging private initiatives, obstructs and suf­ focates them in their infancy. Have a look at France, England and Germany. G IO RG IO: That our bourgeoisie is indolent and ignorant I don't doubt, but its inferiority only supplies the explanation for why it is beaten by the bourgeoisie of other countries in the struggle to conquer the world market: it does not in any way supply the reason for people's poverty. And the clear evidence is that poverty, the lack of work and all the rest of the social evils exist in countries where the bourgeoisie is more active and more intelligent, as much as they do in Italy; actually, those evils are generally more intense in countries where industry is more developed, unless the workers have been able, through organisation, resistance or rebellion, to acquire better living conditions. Capitalism is the same everywhere. In order to survive and prosper it needs a permanent situation of partial scarcity: it needs it to maintain its prices and to create hungry masses to work under any conditions. You see, in fact, when production is in full swing in a coun­ try it is never to give producers the means to increase con­ sumption, but always for sales to an external market. If the domestic consumption increases it occurs only when the workers have been able to profit from these circumstances to demand an increase in their wages and as a consequence 30

have been enabled to buy more goods. But then, when

should die of it is the capitalists who AMBROGIO: So

one reason or another the external market for which

hunger?

produce does not buy anymore, crisis comes, work wages decline and dire poverty begins to cause again. And yet, in this same country where the great ity lacks everything, it would be so much more

rp"",nn,,,,..

to work for their own consumption! But, then, what would capitalists gain out of that!

ld simply work Certainly not. They shou GIORGIO : Oh! you, but you . It might seem harsh to Iike everybody else k is no longer when one eats well wor don't understand: you that it is a need and ' g. I can show you in fact .L mreatemn e to re. But be fair, tomorrow I hav a fulfilment of human natu ady very late. go to work and it is alre

AMBR OGI 0: So, you think it is all the fault of cal:>ITOlllsnn9 GIORGIO: Yes of course; or more generally it's due to

Until next time.

fact that a few individuals have hoarded the land and all instruments of production and can impose their will on workers, in such a fashion that instead of producing to satis­ fy people's needs and with these needs in view, production is geared towards making a profit for the employers. All the justifications you think up to preserve bourgeois priv- . ileges are completely erroneous, or so many lies. A little while ago you were saying that the cause of poverty is the scarcity of products. On another occasion, confronting the problems of the unemployed, you would have said that the warehouses are full, that the goods cannot be sold, and that the proprietors cannot create employment in order to throw goods away. In fact this typifies the absurdity of the system: we die of hunger because the warehouses are full and there is no need to cultivate land, or rather, the landowners don't need their land cultivated; shoemakers don't work and thus walk about in worn out shoes because there are too many shoes .. and so it goes ... 32

33

F OUR

C E S A R E: I l i ke a rg u ing with you. You have a certain of putting things that makes you appea r correct . . . and, indeed , I am not saying that you are comple tely in the

wrong.

�

things in broad terms and from one point of view, disa ect­

ed. But in order to avoid m istakes we must look at all Sides of the question , as I was on the point of doing when you interrupted me.

There are certa inly some absurdities, real or apparent, in the

It is true that the proprietors' interests greatly i nAuence the

present social order. For example, I find it difficult to under­

imposition of an import tax. But on the other hand, if there

stand the customs policy. While here people are dying of

was open entry, the Americans, who can prod uce wheat

hunger or associated d i seases because they lack sufficient

and meat in more favourable conditions than ours, would

bread of good quality, the government makes it d ifficult to

end up supplyi ng the whole of our market: and what would

i m port g ra i n from America, where they have more than they

our farmers do then? The proprietors would be ruined, but

need and would like nothing better than to sell it to us. It's

the workers would fare even worse. Bread would sell for

like being hungry but not Wishing to eat!

small amounts of money. But if there was no way of earning that money you would stil l die of hunger. And, then the

However. . .

Americans, whether the goods are dear or cheap, want to

G I O R G I O : Yes indeed, b u t the government i s not hungry; and neither are the large wheat g rowers of Italy, in whose i nterests the government places the duty on wheat. If those who are hungry were free to act, you would see that they would not reiect the wheatl

get poid, and if in Italy we don't produce, with what are we going to pay? You cou ld say to me that in Italy we could cultivate those products suited to our soi l a n d climate a n d then exchange them abroad: wine for instance, oranges, flowers and the l i ke. But what i f the things that we are capable of producing

C E S A R E : I know that a n d I u nderstand that with these sorts of arguments you make the common people, who only see 34

on favourable terms are not wanted by others, either becau se they have no use for them or because they produce them themselves? Not to mention that to change the produc35

tion regime you need capital, knowledge and above time: w h at would we eat i n the meantime? G I O R G I O: PerFect! You h ave put your Finger on it. trade cannot solve the question of poverty any more th an· protectionism . Free trade is good For consumers and h arms the producers, and vice versa, protectionism is good For the protected producers but does harm to consumers; and since workers are at the same time both consumers and prod uc­ ers, i n the end it is always the same thing. And it will always be the same until the capitalist system i s

sayi ng . On the contrary, I : Th at is not what I'm . . GIO R G I O sca rcity In wh 'ICh c aprcome thi s conditio n of ove to t a th . think e y to . org anise pro duc lion I arg I 01'ns uS , and to . iealism maint ut It need to do a lot of work ; b you , all of s d ee n fy saris the l ack, it i s th e i ng ness to work th at peo ple is not even th e WI'lI t system not sen pre are com plai ning about the . possib ility. We Idle rs: even we h ave to mai ntai n som e ., so muc h becaus e It IS s not please u S - b ut, bec ause doe ainly cert this h g thou work'Ing work and prevent us from these idler s that regu late all . for ce dan u c i ng an abun in good cond itions and prod It is true that often prop rietors C E SA R E : You exag gerate.

If workers worked For themselves, and not for the owner's

spec ulate on the scarcity of don't employ people i n order to use they them selves l ack prod ucts, but more often it is beca

profits, then each country would be able to produce suffi­

capital.

cient For its own needs, and they would only h ave to come

land and raw m aterials are not enough for production. You

abolished.

to an agreement with other countries to d i stribute productive

need, as you know, tools , m ac h i nery, premises, the means

work accordi ng to the soi l q u ality, climate, the availabil ity of

to pay the workers while they work, in a word, capital; and

resources, the inclinations of the i nh abitants etc. i n order that

th is only acc u m u l ates slowly. How m any ventures fail to get

all men should enjoy the best of everything with the m i nimum

off the ground, or, having got off the ground, fail due to a

possible effort .

shortage of capital! Can you i m ag i ne the effect then if, as you desi re, a social revolution came about? With the

C E S A R E : Yes, but these are onIy pipe dreams. G I O R G I O : They may be dream s tod ay; but when the peo­ ple h ave understood how they could improve life , the dream would soon be transformed i nto reality. The only stu m bl i ng blocks are the egoism of some and the i g norance of others. C E S A R E : There are other obstacles, my friend. You think th at once the proprietors are th rown out you would wallow in gold . . . 36

destruction of capital, and the great d i sorder th at would fol­ low it, a general impoverishment would result. from the G I O R G IO: This is another error, or another lie l. capita of ge shorta defenders of the prese nt order : the C apital may be lacki ng in thi s or that under taking beca use a it has been cornered by other s; but if we take socie ty as ve nacti i of whole, you ' l l find that there i s a great q uantity . cap ital, j u st as there i s a gre at qu antity of uncul tivated l and 37

culti es before thi ng s work out ous obs tacl es, whi ch but, I can only see two seri for the best; i n : peo ple's lack of beg me before we can must be overco

ai nly be diffi No there will cert

Don't you see how many machines are rusting, how

_

factories remain closed, how many houses there are tenants.

... the carabinieri. consciou sness and

There is a need for food to nourish workers while they but rea l ly workers must eat even if they are unem

AMBR OG I O: But, tell me a little more; you talk of capital,

They eat l ittle and badly, but they rema i n alive and

work, production, consumption etc.; but you never talk of

ready to work as soon a s a n employer has need of them. So,

rights, justice, morals and religion?

it i s not because there is a lack of the means of subsistence

The issues of how to best uti l i se land and capital are very

that workers don't work; and if they could work on their own

i mportant; but more important still are the moral questions. I

account, they would adapt themselves, where it was really

also would l ike everybody to live well, but if in order to

necessary, to work while l iving just as they do when they are

reach thi s utopia we have to violate moral laws, if we have

unem ployed, because they would know that with thi s tempo­

10 repudiate the eternal principles of right, upon which every

rary sacrifice they could then finally escape from the social'

civil society should be founded, then I would infin itely prefer

condition of poverty and subjection.

that the sufferings of today went on forever!

Imag i ne , and th i s is somethi n g that has been witnessed many times, that an earthquake destroys a city ru i ning an entire district. I n a l ittle ti me the c ity i s reconstructed in a form more beautiful than before and not a trace of the d isaster remains. Because i n such a case it is in the interests of pro­ prietors and capitalists to employ people, the means are q u ickly found, and in the bli n k of an eye an entire city i s reconstructed, where before they h a d conti n ually a sserted that they lacked the means to build a few "workers' houses". As far as the destruction of capital that would take place at the time of the revolution, it is to be hoped that as part of a conscious movement that has as its aim the common owner­ ship of social wealth, the people would not want to destroy what is to become their own. tn any case it would not be as bad a s a n earthquakel 38

.

suprem e And then, just think that there m u st also be a i nto come not will that regulates the world . The world did

it being on its own and there m u st be something beyond be I am not saying God, Paradis e, Hel l , becaus e you would -

quite capab le of not believ ing in them - there m u st be some­ thing beyond thi s world that explai n s everythi ng and where one finds compe nsation for the appare nt i n j u stices down h ere. Do you thi n k you can violate thi s pre-establishe d harmo ny of the u niverse? You are not able to do so. We cannot do other than yield to it. For once stop inciting the mosses, stop giving r ise to fanciful hopes in the souls of the least fortunate, stop blowing on the fire that i s u n fortunately smouldering beneath the ashes. 39

Would you, or other modern barbarians, wish to destroy in a

terrible social cataclysm the civilization that is the glory of

our

ancestors and ourselves? If you want to do something

worthwhile, if you want to relieve as much as possible the suffering of the poor, tell them to resign themselves to their fate, because true happiness lies in being contented. After all, everyone carries their own cross; every class has its own tribulations and duties, and it is not always those who live among riches that are the most happy. GIORGIO: Come, my dear magistrate, leave aside the declarations about "grand principles" and the conventional indignation; we are not in court here, and, for the moment, you do not have to pronounce any sentence on me. How would one guess, from hearing you talk, that you are not one of the underprivileged! And how useful is the resig­ nation of the poor. .. for those who live off them. First of all, I beg you, leave aside the transcendental and reli­ gious arguments, in which even you don't believe. Of mys­ teries of the Universe I know nothing, and you know no more; so it is pointless to bring them into the discussion. For the rest, be aware that the belief in a supreme maker, in God the creator and father of humanity would not be a secure weapon for you. If the priests, who have always been and remain in the service of the wealthy, deduce from it that it is the duty of the poor to resign themselves to their fate, others can deduce (and in the course of history have so deduced) the right to justice and equality. If God is our common father then we are all related. God cannot want some of his chil-

41

dren to exploit and martyr the others; and the rich, the would be

so

many Cains cursed by the Father.

it to . '!f You wish I will demonstrate . , preclsely Giorgio: Yes yov next ti me .

But, let's drop it. AMBROGIO : Well then, let's forget about religion if wish since so much of iI would be pointless to you. But would acknowledge righls, morals, a superior justicel GIORGIO: Usten: if it is true that rights, justice and may require and sanclion oppression and unhappi even of only one human being, I would immediately say you, that rights, iustice and morals are only lies, i weapons forged to defend the privileged; and such they when they mean what you mean by them. Rights, justice, morals should aim at the maximum possible good for ali, or else they are synonyms for arrogant behav­ iour and injustice. And, it is certainly true that this concep­ tion of them answers 10 the necessities of existence and the

development of human social cooperation, that has formed

and persisted in the human conscience and continually gai ns in strength, in spite of all the opposition from those who up to now have dominated the world. You yourself could not defend, other than with pitiful sophism, the present social institutions with your interpretation of abstract principles of morality and justice. AMBROGIO: You really are very presumptuous. It is not enough to deny, as it seems to me you do, the right to prop­ erty, but you maintain that we are incapable of defending it with our own principles ... 42

43

FIVE

GIORGIO: WelJ then, my dear magistrate, if I am not taken, we were talking about the right to property. AMBROGIO: Indeed. I am really curious to hear how you would defend, in the name of iustice and morals, your pro­ posals for despoliation and robb ery. A society in which no-one is secure in their possessio ns would no longer be a soci ety, but a horde of wild bea sts . ready to devour each other. GIORGIO: Doesn't it seem to you rhat this is precisely the case with today's society? You are accusing us of desp oliation and robbery; but on Ihe contrary, isn't it the proprieto rs who continually despoil the workers and rob them of the fruits of their labour? AMBROGIO: Proprietors use their goods in ways they believe for the best, and they have the right ta do so, in the same way the workers free ly dispose of their labour. Ow ners and workers contract freely for the price of work, and whe n the contract is respected no one can complain. Charity can relieve acute trou bles, unmerited troubles, but rights must remain untoucha ble, 44

t! The spe ck·Ing of a free contrac GIORGIO: Bu t You are m· re5e ty k cannot eo t , and his liber worker wh0 does not wor up l Ied bY thieves, who gives bles rhal of a traveller, asso

�

.

. "Fe, hIS purse for fear of losing hiS

connot use this to negate AMBROGIO: All right; but you , e of their property as they the right of each person to d'ISpOS see fil. , rty! But doesn'l this GIORGIO: Their property, their pr ope ble 10 claim Ihol come about because Ihe I ondowners are a . talists are able capi e Ih the land ond 'Its produce as theirs ond ' a our and other capitol to claim as Ihe'lrs the IOstrumenls 0fib creoted by human activity? , it. AMBROGIO: The low recognizes their right to e ow, then even a street GIORGIO: Ah! If it is only th} ,. he 'hi to assassinate ond to rob assassin could claim " th e fig

0f low that would only have to f 0rmulate a few artlcIes is precisely recognised these rig 'his On the other h ond, this . "t has created what Ihe dominant doss has accompI" shed ,II that It has a re ody perpelows to legitimize the usurpafons I trated, and has mode them a means 0f new approprialions. ,

,

�

4.5

If all you r "sup rem e prin ci p Ies " are based on the law, it will be eno u 9 h ' I f tomorrow Ih ere 'IS a law Ih e abo lilio n of prlv ' ale pro per ty, an d tha t whi ch today call rob ber y and d esp I " o lotio n would lOsta ' ntIy " sup rem e prin cipl e", A M B R O G I O : Oh ! But ' the law m usl be lust l It mus t to the prin cip les of fig ' h ts and mo rali ty, an d sho uld not be resu lt of unb ridl ed wh ' Ims , or else , G I O R G I O ,' S0, It " S not the law tha t crea tes righ ts, but wh ich justify law Th b what righ t does all the wea lth, both natu al alt ' and tha t cre ate d by the work hum anity bel ong to a few ,IOd'IV I'd ua Is and give s them righ t of l i fe a n d dea th 0ver the mas ses of the "n'._·'· _'� lege d?

� :: �

A M B R O G I O ,' I t IS ' the righ t tha t every per son has , mus t have, to d ispose fr ee fy of the prod uel 0 f thei r acti vity , IS nat ura l to hum an't I y, Wit , h out it CIVI " /'Isah, on would not b een possibl e ,

'

G I O R G I O '. \AI v ve II , I nev er! Her e we now have a defend er of the rights of labour Bravo , rea llyl But tell me, how come Ihose who work are ose wh 0 have noth ing, wh 'lIe property actua IIy belo ngs 10 Ihose w h 0 don 'l work?

Ih

Does n 't it occur to you that the Iogl.cal outcom e of your theory is that the pre sen t p . ors ropnet a re th'leves and that, in , justlce , we nee d to expropr' . 10Ie th em '1 0 0rd er to give the wealth W h'ICh they have usu rpe d to Its ' I egl'I'Ima le owners , the Workers?

46

not e pro prie tors who do

som I O : If there are or their AM BR O G the first to work, they re we they eca use make work it is b to genius and the to save nd had the merit ancesto rs, a fru it, 1I-Ieir savings bear

a

i n e a worker, who as ndeed, ca n you imag G IO R G I O : I himse lf alive, saving arcely enoug h to keep rule, earns sc er some w ealthl and puttin g togeth

pro perty is vio len ce, n tha t the ori gin of You kno w ver y we l . But, let's ass ume if you

al or illeg a robbery and theft, leg of production ma de som e eco nom ies like that someone has nts to enioy wo son al work: if he in h i s work, his ow n per ne. But this how he wishes, tha t is fi lhem later on, when and n the plet ely however whe view of thin gs cha nge s com bea r savi ngs , wha t you cali , process beg ins of mak ing his them from ling work and stea fruit. This mea ns mak ing othe rs ns hoa rdi ng som e goo ds mea it e; duc a por t of wha t they pro than their cost ; i t mea ns and sell ing ,hem at a pric e high er n order to spec ulat e upo the artif icial crea tion of scarcity in ed eriv d d ihoo r livel it; it mea ns taki ng awa y from othe rs thei to work for poor them e forc to er from worki n g freely in ord whi ch do not corre­ wages; and man y other simi lar thi ngs rate that property, spond to a sens e of justi ce and dem onst ward and open rob­ when it does not deri ve from strai ghtfor whi ch prop rietors bery, derives from the work of othe rs, own adv anta ge. have, in one way or another, turn ed to their has, (let us con­ Does it seem just to you thaI a person who tog ethe r a little cede). by thei r work a n d thei r gen iUS put Ihe prod ucts of of ca pita l, can bec aus e of this rob others gene ratio ns their work, and furthermore beq ueat h to all the 47

of his descendants the right to l ive in idleness on the

01 moners

of workers? Does it seem just to you that, because there have been a laborious and thrifty men - I say this to bring out your - that hove accumulated some capital, the g reat mass humanity must be condemned to perpetual poverty and telisation? And, on the other hand, even if someone had worked themselves, with their muscles and thei r brains exploiting anybody; even if, against all the odds, such a had been able to produce much more than they without the di rect or indirect cooperation of the society as whole, it does not mean because of this that they should authorised to do harm to others, to take away from the means of existence. If someone built a road along shore they could not, because of this, argue for a right deny the access of others to the sea . I f someone could and cultivate o n their own all the soil of a province, could not presume because of this to starve all the tants of that province. If someone had c reated some new and powerful means of production, they would not have the right to use their invention i n such a way as to subject peer pie to their rule a n d even less of bequeathing to the count­ less successions of their descendants the right to domi nate and exploit future generations. But I am losing my way to suppose for a moment that propri­ etors are workers or the descendants of workers! Would you like me to tell you the origin of the wealth of all the gentle­ men in our com munity, both of noblemen of ancient stock as well as the nouveaux riches?

.

eans this bY doublful m he s acqu .i red ric e m so erty. Th e e right to prop If "'ere ar n to d eny th e so . rea a e ms oVI d up old pro bl e does not pr u sefu i t0 dig a n d it' s not st pa th e . ' post IS again .

' s wh at yO U , leave th em bu ried if that \I e W idu a l G IO R G I O : portant. I n div I i s not i m rned 't nce co a m l as as wont. As for b eca u se It h ed, not s o m u ch be a boli sh I d h ou uc sh m as rty . ans, nt ... . ope uesh O nable me more o r less q Y b d the uire loit acq been . t an d the means to exp righ I g rants the m akas because ·t alway s e n d u p velo pment WI· 1 1 de i ts nd a rs, e work of oth ew. endent on a f 0f peopIe dep ing the great mass nd ed p rop. !ify i nd ividu al la ow c a n yo� \US" at this But, by the way, h vOU can 't tell me th af s avl ngs �· I f their erty with your th eery o prop detors or e work af the th rom f d e duc pro was ,

ancesto rs? no

land h as · a te d ster ile Unc u I h� A M B R O G I O : You see . and n atu. . , ma'ke I t yield , , recla im It

' value. People occupy It b een prer wou Id n 't h ave h . h lc w , s rally have a rig h t to ·Its crop o n the lan d . duced without thei r work th e t h e worker t o i s t h e fi. gh t o f GIOR G I O · All right : t h i s asce n he t cea ses wh e ut this righ fruils of h·I S own labo ur ; b ? 't yau th ink so es to cultivate the la nd , Don

terr iter detors posses s pre se nt p ro P Now, how i s it tha t the n ever e hav wark, th ey do not ries, often i mmense, th at ork? w to w 0thers tl do not aIIo worke d and most freque n Y 49

48

J

AM B

personlet's l eave a side no, .!11 ch arity' o, N : O ROG I

How is it that la nds tha t hav e n ever b een cultiva ted are vately owned? Wh ot is Ihe wor k, wha t is the wh ich may ha ve give n a dale of orig in, i n this ca se, to erty righ ts ?

g i n of private pro perty, is vio len ce. And you ca n n ot fully ius/ify it, if yo u don't a ccept the p rinc iple tha t e q ual s force, a n d in tha I ca se . . . heaven help you if one you become the most enfe ebled. AM B R O G I O : Bu t in short, you lose Sig ht o f socia l uti/' the i n h eren t ne ces sity of civi l sOciety. Witho ut Ihe righ l pro per ty there Wo uld be n o se curity, n o more a n d so ciety orderly would dissolve in chaos. Gl O RGI0 ; What ! Now yo u talk o f social utili ty? But in our eodier con vers atio ns I o nly co ncerne d myself with dam age p roduce d by private prOperty, you called me to arg ume nls a bout abs tract righ tsl En ough for thi s evenin g. EXc use me but I ha ve to go . We go i n to it ano 'll ther time.

50

SIX G I O R G I O : Well, have you heard what has tlalPpemec: Someone told a newspaper about the conversation that

AMB R OG I O : No, no, on the contrary - I confess that I a m

had last time, and for having published it, the ne�\lSDaClill

will, if you l i ke, put in a good word with the Public

has been gagged.

Prosecutor. After all, with the law as i t is, no one is denied

interested. Let's continue; a s regards the restrai ning order I

the right to d i scussion. A M B R O G I O : Ah ! G I O R G I O : Of course, it goes without saying you know a nyth ing . . . ! I don't understa n d how you c a n claim be so confident of your ideas when you are so a frai d of public hearing some discussion of the m . The paper fal reported both your arguments a nd m i ne. You ought to happy that the public is able to appreciate the rational upon which the present social constitution rests, a n d j u stice to t h e futile criticisms of i t s a dversaries. 'nstead shut people up, you s ilence them . A M B R O G I O : I a m not involved at a l l; I belong to the judi­ cial magistracy and not to the public m i nistry. G I O R G I O : Yes, , know! But, you are colleagues all the same and the same spirit a n imates you a ll .

G I O RG I O : let's continue, then . tast time, i f I remember rightly, in defend i n g the right to property you took as the present basis positive law, in other words the civil code, then a sense of justice, then social utility. Permit me to sum up, in a few words, my ideas with respect to all this. From my point of view i n d ividual property is u niust a n d immoral because i t is founded either o n open violence, on fraud, or on the legal exploitation of the labour of others; and it is harmful because it h inders production and prevents the needs of a l l being satisfied by what can be obtained from land and labour, because it creates poverty for the ma sses and generates hatred, crimes a nd most of the evils that afflict modern society. For these reasons I would l i ke to abolish it a n d su bstitute a property regime based on common ownership, in which a l l

If m y chatter annoys yo u , tell me . . . a n d I will go a n d chatter

people, contributing their just amount of labour, w i l l receive

somewhere else.

the maxim u m possible level of wellbeing. 52

53

A M B RO G I O : Really, 1 can't see w ith what logic you arrived at common property. You hove fought against erty because, according to you, it derives from violence from the exploitation of the labour o f others; you have that capitalists regulate production with on eye to their its and not the belter to satisfy to Ihe public need with least possible effort of the workers; you have denied the to obto i n revenue from land which o n e has not oneself, to derive a profit from one's own money or to interest by i nvesting in the construction of houses and other i n dustries; but you have, however, recognised the of workers to the products of their own labour, actually have cham pioned it. A s

a

consequence, according to

logiC, on these criteria you can challen g e the verification the titles to property, a nd demand the a bolition of i nterest money and private income; you may even ask for the dation of the present society and the division of land and instruments of labour among those who wish to use them . . . but you cannot talk o f communism. Ind ividual ownership the products of one's labour must olways exist; and, if you want your emancipated worker to have that security i n the future without which no work will be done which does not produce an immediate profit, you must recognise ind ividual ownership of the land and the instruments of produdion to the extent they are used. G I O R G I O : Excellent, please conti nue; we could say that even you are tarred with the pitch of socialism . You are of a socialist school different from mine, but it is still socialism. A socialist magistrate is on interesting phenomenon.

54

tust as .,t .,s ,m p

strating your contradictions and showing you that you should be a mutualist and not a comm u nist' a

And then I would have to say to you that the division of erty into small portions would render any large AnlrArr\ri

..

impossible and result in general poverty.

ity. ty. then, there i s n o more l i ber A M B R O G I O : But,

G I O R G I O : But I am not a mutualist, a partisan of the sion of property, nor is, as for as I know, any other socialist. I don't thi nk that dividing property would be worse than ing it whole in the hands of the capitalists; bul I know this division, where possible, would cause g rave damage production . Above all it could not survive and would lead, again to the formation of great fortunes, and to the nrr" "t,nr. ' n","''' !'' ''

and exploitation. I say that the worker has the right to the entire product of his

work: but I recognise that this right is only a formula of abstract j ustice; and means, in practice, that there should be no exploitation, that everyone must work a n d enjoy the fruits of their labour, according to the c ustom agreed a m ong them. Workers are not isolated beings that live by themselves and for themselves, but social beings that live in a continuous exchange of services with other workers, and they must coordi nale their rights with those of the others. Moreover it

d

is i mpossible, the more so with modern production metho s, to determine the exact labour that each worker contributed,

there will ntrary, i t i s only th en that G I O R G I O : On the co theoreti cal, libe rals , call liberty the be liberty. You , so call ed cap abl e ng; and you wo uld be abstract righ t to do somethi on who pers a or blush i ng, that of say ing with out smil ing, foo d cure were not able to pro died of h u nge r because they lib­ We , on the contrary, ca\l for themselves, wa s free to eat. n g - and this l i berty, the erty the pos sibi lity of doi ng somethi as the agreement amo ng only true one, becomes greater othe r grow s. men and the support they give each y wer e to be divi ded , A M B R O G I O : You said that if pro pert d and ther e wo uld the great fort une s wo uld soo n be restore y is this? be a return to the orig inal situa tion . Wh i t wou ld be an G I O R G I O : Bec aus e, at the beg inni ng equ a\. Ther e are im poss ible goa l to mak e everyone perfectly with l ittle work different sorts of land , som e prod uce a lot are all sorts of ond o thers a liltle with a lot of work; there different locali­ advantages and disa dva ntag es offered by l and i ntel lecti es; there are also great differences in phy sica 57

56

�

�

�

of the division of property.

ionisation of the masses and, in the bilter end, to

ne the d i fferences in produc­ Ossibl e to dete rmi rs, h w much i s each grou p of orke trIiIY of each worker or of t h e I m ple m ents th e soil, t h e q uality due to the fertility o f .ing from the geo· es or diffic ulti es flOW used, the advantag onm nt . Hence, the n or the soci a l envir graphical situ atio . stnct figh ts of each fou n d in res pect to Ihe solution can not be agreement , i n solid arbe soug ht in frater nal person, but m u st .

A M BR O G I O : No, no, I'm no socialist. I was only

tva I strength between one person a n d another. Now, these divi s ions rivalry ond struggle would naturally a rise: besl land, the best implem ents and the best sites would the strongest, the most inteHigent or the most Hence, the best material means being i n the hands of most g ifted people, they would qu ickly find themselves in position s uperior to others, and starting from these advantages, would easily grow in strength, thus

of

weak, which would lead to the re-con stitution of a society. A M B R O G I O : So, reoUy seriously, you are a You wont laws that would declare the share of each i n ual t o be non-transferable a n d would surround the weak serious legal guarantees. G ! O R G I O : Oh! You a lways thi nk that one can re anythi n g with laws You ore not a magistrate for nothing­ _ laws are made and unmade to please the strongest. Those who are a liltle stronger ' than the average violate ' them; those who are very much stronger repeal them, and moke others to suit their i nterests . A M B R O G I O : And, so? G l O RG I O : Wel l then, I've al ready told you, it is necessary

to s ubstitute agreement and solidarity for str uggle among people, a nd to achieve this it is necessary first of all to abol­ i s h individuol property.

58

bl

.:. W

( - g u re you a re cutting by want_ _ on sidering the II C O G I R s G lO soci ety that mOl Otom on a I d efenee of a rah a e ak m h muC I"g to e hav you thi n k that ce , I don' t rea lly itself with brute for _

COll1m,ern

i n g a new process of exploitation and expropriation

ith aB the e no problem s w t tnere wou Id b oevO G I O - Bu to everybody, wh verythi n g bel ong s oval_\a e _ E make love ; eat, LO doesn 't ca n work an d Wll n o C to waots What a good a lan d of Ple nty! y! On , wh at cIri Ie be merr Hal Hal u l madhouse! Hal h at a be autif

_

ut! 10 laugh abo

h ove . B ul you seem to , I om a com m u n .ist. Yes my good S i r . m . Next time I will try o nd . af c om m un i s . $0100' strange noho n s noW, g ood even mg . you understa nd. for

make

S EVE N

A M B RO G IO: Well, then, would you like to explain what this communism of yours is all about.

understand what is meant. It is not, obviously, about on absolute right to satisfy all of one's needs, because needs

infinite, growing more rapidly than the means to satisfy and so their satisfaction is always limited by produc-

G IO R G IO : With pleasure. Communism is a method of social organ isation in people, instead of fighting among themselves to mrlnnnnl natural advantages and alternatively explo iting and ing each other, as happens in today's societ y, would ate and agree to cooperate in the best intere st of all. from the principle that the land, the mines and all forces belong to everybody, and that all the nr-r-lIm,,,1nI wealth and acquisitions of previous gener ations also to everybody, people, in communism, would wont to cooperatively, to produce all that is neces sary. A M B RO G I O : J understand. You wont, as was stated news-sheet that came to hand during an anarchist trial, each person fo produce according to their ability and sume according to their needs; or, for each to give can and fake what they need. Isn't that so? G IO RG IO : In fact these are principles that we repeat; but for them to represent correctly our concEmtiiOfl what a communist society would be like it is nA,CA!iSOlry 60

capacity; nor would it be useful or just that the commu­ in order to satisfy excessive needs, otherwise called of a few individuals, should undertake work, out of 1Irn,IVlr:ti,..,n to the utility being produced. Nor are we talking

employing all of one's strength in producing things, token literally, this would mean working until one is IICI'IcJusted, which would mean that by maximising the satis­ of human needs we destroy humanity. we would like is for everybody to live in the best pos­ way: so that everybody with a minimum amount of will obtain maximum satisfaction. I don't know how to you a theoretical formula which correctly depicts such slate of affairs; but when we get rid of the social environ­ of the boss and the police, and people consider each as family, and think of helping instead of exploiting

another, the practical formula for social life will soon be In any case, we will make the most of what we know what we can do, providing for piece-by-piece modifica­ as we learn to do things better. 61

A M B R O G I O : I u ndersta nd: you are a partisan of the au

tas, as your comrades from France would say, that i s

will come about when they have achieved or silent, that a nd are i n spired by a feeli n g of solieq uality of conditions

say each person produces what h e l i kes and throws in

da rity.

he ap or, if you prefer, brings to the communal wa

Try to enter i nto the spirit of our prog ram me, a n d don't worry overmuch about for m ulas that, in our party just l i ke

,

what he has produced; and each takes from the heap ever he l i kes and whatever he needs. Isn't that so? G I O R G I O : I notice that you decided to i n form yourself

any other, are not pithy a n d striking but are always a vague and inexact way of expressing a broad directio n .

l i ttle about th is issue, and I guess that you have read the

A M B R OG I O : B u t don't you rea lise that communism is the

documents more carefully than you norm a l ly do ,when you ,

negation of liberty, and of human personality? Perhaps, i t

send us to jail. If all mag istrates and policemen did this, the

may have existed i n the beg i nning of humanity, when human

th ings that they steal from us during the searches would at

beings, scarcely developed i n tellectually a nd morally, were

least be useful for someth i n g !

happy when they could satisfy their material appetites as

But, let's retu rn to o u r discuss ion. Even thi s formula o f take from the heap is only a form of words, that expresses an ' ' i nclination to s ubsti tute for the market spirit of today the it of fraternity and solidarity, but it doesn't indicate with certa i n ty a defin ite method of social organ isation . you could find amon g us some w h o take that formula Iy, because they suppose that work undertaken